Breaking the game

Posted on July 10, 2013 by knlistman

breaking game (3)A lot of people spend time more absorbed in games more their work.  Aaron Dignan (owner of his own digital strategy company) proposes a solution for this decreasing productivity – “Make work more like play.” Restructure work so learning and producing are like playing a computer game. He has even examined why electronic games are addictive and suggests that businesses can harness this knowledge to get people to work more efficiently.  He purports that people are capable of so much more because they spend most of their time bored. If they revamp existence to be a game-like world, somehow the result would be greater fulfillment. [1]

Actually, for me this conjures up uncomfortable visions of a Skinnerian world in which we eagerly work for a place on the leader board or a steady dole of rewards. I enjoy the occasional distraction of games as a social activity, but vastly prefer playing with other live people. Electronic games provide a far less than adequate substitute for reality for me. In fact, I find it boring to play these by myself and would much rather be reading a novel if I had to kill time.

Weave a logistical problems into a legend that requires computation of battle plans to save a princess. The story-telling aspect would intrigue some and bore others. Then, there are ever competing people who would speedily memorize the most tedious facts for the sake of a place on the leader board. But the most challenging people to instruct through gaming are the ones that want to experiment with the games, because games are typically structured in a manner that lends itself to discovering how to win through convergent thinking, not creating one’s own world. I recalled every time  I use  an educational game in high school there are a few students that play with game trying to find its flaws rather than achieving any goals – like the one freshman who only tried to get the vocabulary app to recognize “inappropriate” words.

This was not the first case that I had seen of someone attempting to “break the game.”  My own children had turned the amusement park in Roller Coaster Tycoon into a kind of roller coaster death trap. Ironically the delayed popularity stats for “thrilling ride” would still go up momentarily after the first patron died if they built an roller coaster that went too beyond the safety limits. When games are no longer entertaining (and eventually they become that way for everyone) students amuse themselves by breaking the very thing that has engaged them for hours. I wonder what exactly they learn from doing that?

[1] Aaron Dignan: How to Use Games to Excel at Life and Workhttp://99u.com/videos/7091/Aaron-Dignan-How-to-Use-Games-to-Excel-at-Life-and-Work (accessed December 19, 2012)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Not just any obsession 2

Posted on July 9, 2013 by knlistman

Human-SkeletoncWhen I interview students about possible career choices, they often have no idea. So I ask about their hobbies  and they tell me they like to play computer games.  I have some insights into courses they need to study for a possible career in creating games.  But many balk at the requirements to develop games. Playing them fun, taking math and computer science courses to develop games is too difficult. “Why can’t I just play games for a living?” they ask. “There are people that do that.” Of course there are, so I inquired if they have contacted any teams to tryout, because professional game players start young. Then, I ask what they plan to do for a living after reaching 25. Like any physical sport, professional gaming declines with age. Patrick Sättermon a professional Counter-Strike player, left career gaming by 27. Earlier he had said “At 26, my skill is my experience. But picking up a new game? I’ve lost that. I’m not the kid I was.”[1]

What I realized is that most students seclude themselves in front of a computer playing games not because they see how it will help them in the future. Rather it is the increase in dopamine, endorphins,  and adrenaline – the sense of pleasure and excitement – that draws them repeatedly to gaming.  Now gaming addiction is not officially recognized as a mental disorder. There are any number of ‘innocent’ activities that can turn into addiction – eating and shopping to name a few. So one cannot blame the electronic games. But there are things in the game design that increase this potential.

Most on-line games start out easy with a rather flat learning curve. The player quickly grows accustom to new character with limited ability and territory. After a stressful day at work or school, one can sit down at a game and know immediately what to do.  But the long term aim is for the characters to keep leveling up – gaining addition skills, equipment and range so that the familiar doesn’t become boring. Then, game design depends on the Skinnerian idea of intermittent rewards. The game is not completely consistent. Sometimes, characters performs below or beyond their level; the gamer keeps playing, hoping for another arbitrary “big win.”[2]

The most addictive effect of games  is the adrenaline aroused by the nature of battle. With increase adrenaline comes increased focus and physical agility and strength – the superhuman feeling that the gamer wants to keep returning to. Finally, there is the matter of status. There are different ways to reach this, number of wins, length of play. Length of game play as a status marker for serious gamer did eventually  cause some one to pay the ultimate price. A Korean player had been on a gaming all night when a waitress at the internet cafe last heard him talk. Nine hours later he was found dead, still reaching for the mouse. [2]

[1] Cheshire, Tom Career Gamers: Inside the world of modern professional gaming 04 July 2011
[2] Breeze, Meg A quiet killer: Why video games are so addictive 12 January 2013

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Not just any obsession 1

Posted on July 5, 2013 by knlistman

Human-SkeletonaRecall the Gameboy print ad? Released back when most teenagers still read magazines – a skeleton clutching a game console with the warning “Don’t forget to eat.” Electronic game playing had achieved the status of an addiction, so compelling one was in danger of forgetting basic needs. In my family  it wasn’t quite that bad. At numerous times I had to disable my son’s computer by removing the keyboard when he refused to cease gaming. However,  when computer use was unrestricted, my son would arise at noon, grab a stash of chips, raisin bread and orange juice, and then hunker down in front of his machine all day. He might wander into the kitchen at eight thirty in the evening, asking when dinner would be ready, only to learn that he had ignored the call to come and eat two hours earlier.

Curious, I asked what drove him to play computer games for hours. He claimed to be building a reputation as the leader of a StarCraft clan. He was deluding himself,  I thought. Who is going to be impressed by that?  But I just nodded as he continued to defend how this demonstrated leadership ability. Then, he wrote about this experience in his college essay,  pointing out that a number of universities had competing StarCraft teams – UC Berkeley even had a class designed around the game.[1] Due in part to family rules, my son spent more time with  homework than he did playing games  and did manage to get a modest engineering scholarship at a local university.  He is currently working towards a degree with the goal of game development, hoping to turn a obsession into a career.

Competition against others becomes a major force in most on-line games. According to my son, most gamers feel that if you are not playing against a live opponent,  you’re not really playing a game. What happens to those that lose this competition, when games are required for classes? When it comes to games for learning everyone wants to know if they can be designed to reproduce the addictive qualities of on-line games. I want to know if it is even wise to do so.

[1] Cavilli, Earnest, U.C. Berkeley Now Offers StarCraft Class, in Wired 29 January 2009

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Farmville or Battlefield?

Posted on July 4, 2013 by knlistman

farm-field 2The of use video and computer games in education has sparked a bit of debate. On one side teachers see students doing something that they love to do, and hope games will promote this kind of engagement in learning. On the other hand is a growing concern that students also need to see learning as a responsibility and not expect it to be all play. A third concern  is whether games will actually cause the students to learn the skills we had planned for them to. Which brings about a fourth question. How do the students’ motivations for playing – and there are more than one – affect the outcome of instructional games?

When looking at games for education, I try to assess how skills used in the game will transfer to learning used in the world beyond the classroom. The FPS (first person shooter) type of game design seem to work best for improving speed at basic skills that should be automatic – such as word recognition, spelling and computation. But not everyone prefers this kind of game.

At the end of the semester, I strolled around a high school business information management class, most of the students have completed all assignments and are spending free time on the computers. About half the males were playing games. Many were competing against each other in a FPS game on a low resolution battle field. In another game, a boy threaded a cartoon-like biker through a maze of geometric terrain, and his friend watched as the biker lost cartoon-like blood and limbs. The other males were on YouTube. None of the females were playing games. For them FaceBook and YouTube came in as second choice to scrolling down screens filled with the latest fashion on Pinterest and Tumblr.

In a different class with this same sort of free-time, say a computer science, ninety percent of the class, females included, would be involved in gaming, some of it requiring long-term strategies. However, most of the students would be competing with their peers or watching the competition.  In an computer art class, there might be one person playing.

When I get home in the evening and check my e-mail there are all sorts of notifications from Facebook. My friends playing the new version of Farmville invite me to share their bounty, which evidently is worth points towards building a bigger farm. It is this kind of cooperative game, in which more friends offer opportunity to own more virtual goods, that many females teachers tend to favor. However, if they select educational games according to their tastes, they will lose a portion of the class that want action games or competition against real people.

The question of which kind of game promotes learning really needs to be revised to what range of games will engage all the students.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Game-driven learning

Posted on July 4, 2013 by knlistman

wall screen copyPlaying games is fun. Make them available via internet on hand-held devices. Viola! endless access to fun. A recent invasion of such endless fun entered our schools in the form of an app called Fun Run.

Fun Run didn’t have sophisticated graphics or complex levels. Racing cute, furry creatures while dodging lightning bolts was  attractive because of live competition. Student could coordinate beginning of races and play against friends for bragging rights. They found it increasingly hard to give up this game for their studies. “No Fun Run” signs sprung up in classrooms. Teachers dream of a way to engage students in lessons as deeply as games. Should that be the wave of future education?

During the slowdown in classes that occurs around exam time, I observed high school students and talked to them about the attraction of gaming. First, I noted that normally about 20 to 25 percent of the students would select electronic game playing when allowed to do anything in a class (they all had some form of internet access). Gaming was simply more noticeable due to constant whoops and boasts of “Owned you!” and “Look at this score!” Interestingly, I saw some students watching the others play, but never participating themselves. Because, I did not focus on other activities selected during “down time,” I don’t have a comprehensive list sorted by percentages. However, talking with friends appeared to be the top choice.  Others were listening to music, sharing photos, watching videos, texting, drawing and reading. Evidently, any pedagogy built around the learning structures and rewards of gaming is not going to appeal to a large percentage of the students.

During discussions with students who preferred electronic games to other forms of entertainment, I found some recurrent themes. Game playing is adrenaline producing. This is interesting because the attention required for gaming tends to reduce social interaction. According to Marti Olsen Laney (psychotherapist and researcher) extroverts have a greater enjoyment of both adrenaline rushes and lengthy social interactions than introverts. [1]

The addictive nature of electronic games may results from the fact that that they provide one source of enjoyable stimulation while isolating people from a source of stress. These students felt gaming was a safe entertainment, a low stakes activity with the opportunity to practice and fail repeatedly. The learning curve was very gentle. Most of the time they did not have to think about which direction to put efforts as the game offered limited options. Students preferred games based on anticipating and making key presses accurately to those requiring higher level thinking skills.

Students definitely found electronic games more thrilling when they could play against other live people. As one said “Winning against a machine is not really winning.” (However, access to “cheats” was a popular way to short cut the time taken to master a game.) When I asked one student what he learned playing Fun Run, he answered “Nothing really, but I did learn how to spell playing a computer game.” As a dyslexic, he had not been able to memorize phonemes as rapidly as other students. He found the additional practice he required through a game-like computer program.

This is probably the true direction learning through gaming should take. Students learn more rapidly through direct instruction and practice more enjoyably through games. However, just as simple games are fads that students constantly abandon for the next new thriller, games for education will need to keep up with the thirst for billions of slightly challenging new levels.

Early in the “Fun Run” invasion I saw a girl ask a boy if she could borrow his phone to play this game.

“Didn’t renew it, got bored with it.” he replied.

“Ah,” she moaned looking downcast.

“Just playing with you,” he responded with a sly smile handing her the phone. Obviously playing the game was not one of his major motivations.

[1] Laney, Marti Olsen, The Introvert Advantage: Making the Most of Your Inner Strengths. Workman Publishing, 2002

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why do I need to know this?

Posted on July 2, 2013 by knlistman
527px-Runge_Farbenkugel

Runge and munsell color spheres

Students often ask “Why do I need to know this?” not because the subject is irrelevant, but  because they struggle to learn. The answer to “How am I going to use this in real life?” depends on what their life will be like.

However, I am becoming increasingly conscious of a disquieting trend behind the questions about relevancy. Students want something that will grab their attention and draw them easily into learning. They want relief from the pressure of mental effort involved in learning – concentrating, focusing and making sense of information. Should educators play along with this trend and seek engage their students through wide range of “edutainment,” or take a different tactic?

One of the difficulties is the increasing amount of knowledge that students are supposed to master. Mastery, however, is often measured by memorization of data, rather than the ability to produce something useful from what have been taught. The tedious work that goes into building a car or researching a genealogy is bearable – even enjoyable – if there is a goal to aim towards.

In school, we supposedly learn information to expand our mind and think more deeply, and then we go on to jobs, where we learn more with the aim of gaining more money. Some people collects details of their acquaintances likes and dislikes, dealing in the social sphere to gain influence, while others seek to learn what is novel and innovative. Why the difference? We tend to learn based on how we believe it will serve us.

However,  we deceive students if we let them believe learning should always be fun and entertaining. There is a discipline required to incorporate information that is not inherently interesting. Yet, this type of learning is still necessary for performing in the real world. Most jobs require careful, conscientious work or dealing with volumes of information. As Adam Timothy pointed out students become invested in educational games and learn to memorize data (like computation tables). However when it is time to apply the learning, they stay on the gaming loop and continue to play rather than produce.[1]

The problem with disengaged students may not be with the instructional method, but the student’s lack of choice in determining a goal to work towards.

[1] Addiction vs. Reflection: Unlocking the Potential of Games Jan 2, 2013http://www.edutopia.org/blog/addiction-vs-reflection-gaming-potential-adam-timothy
Posted in Education trends, The information age | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

When does “engaging” interfere with learning?

Posted on June 29, 2013 by knlistman

055 monitor_child copyRecently, I was surprised to see an article by Ruth Clark entitled “Why Games Don’t Teach.” According to research, a simulation game made a less effective teaching tool than a computerized tutorial.[1] One of the things that I noted as my own children grew up with computers was that as learning games became more complex in use of visuals and audio, they often became less complex in the kind of thinking required to play them. Some of the earliest text based scenario games (like Oregon Trail) required more reflection from players on making decisions and keeping track of results than later games with beautiful graphics and audio.

How do more engaging games affect learning? At one point, I was attempting to give my daughter reinforcement on phonetic reading using a computer program that provided a game like atmosphere for read instruction. At first this seemed to work, but she just did not seem able to master a rhyming exercise. So I watched her. The animation of the alligator, followed by a fire-breathing dragon that occurred whenever students missed too many answers was so intriguing that she kept making mistakes on purpose. The same elements that made the game  emotionally engaging, prevented her from moving forward in learning phonetics.

I observed in schools as some students using computer games to learn math became frustrated because the “logic” of program was not same as theirs. The processes to learn math were developed by specialists in that field. But math problems can be worked in more than one way. Some alternative ways of solving a problem that makes less sense for an expert, makes more sense for the students. This occurs not only for application of math but also problem-solving in science, reading and writing.

Often students do not refuse to complete the work because it is not engaging, but because it requires an extended effort that they are not used to giving. When I would get my daughter started on a game requiring careful attention and problem-solving skills (like Oregon Trail) she would give up the first time her party died. So what are computer-based simulation games used for in education? Human factors research shows that cognitive overload limits human ability to integrate all the data that a computer can display.  When teaching we must show students not only how to use technology, but also how to keep track of data so they are not overloaded (or under challenged). This often requires one on one instruction and other students need to keep busy as the teacher provides this. Until the students have enough experience to be learning or creating on their own, an engaging (but not very deep) computer game as a tutor makes an excellent baby sitter in the classroom.

[1] Clark, Ruth. “Why Games Don’t Teach” Learning Solutions Magazine (February 19, 2013)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How crazy are you?

Posted on June 28, 2013 by knlistman

Paris 2012 141La Pyramide inverted c copyRecently my daughter showed me an inverted Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, balanced on the tiny point of  self-actualization. It was the “Artist’s hierarchy of needs” because creating was more important than eating or sleeping. Despite Abraham Maslow’s theory that fulfillment of physical and psychological needs lead to self-actualization and creativity, creative people seem driven by something else. Something that often causes them to ignore basic needs.  So it’s time to give others their fair shake and look at some competing ideas about what constitutes creativity.

Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychotherapy, saw creativity as a socially acceptable defense mechanism for expressing socially unacceptable urges.  In other words being creative was the way to sublimate that pesky improper sex drive. He felt the creative process was driven by the unhappy suffering of unfulfilled fantasies. Basically being creative was akin to being neurotic.[1]

Sarnoff Mednick came up with the associative theory. Creativity is a response to stimulus (sort of like drooling when you smell fresh hot cinnamon rolls). When a stimulus hits the senses, a creative response would be to think of an extremely remotely related idea. This was tested using words, with the theory that the more remote the idea was from the original word, the more creative the person was. Mednick is most famous for his research that associates psychosocial disorders (i.e. acting like a criminal) with genes the you inherit from your parents.[2]

Carl Rogers saw creativity in a similar light to Abraham Maslow. He thought creativity was the result of healthy psychological growth, and the highest form of self-actualization.  He saw creative people as being wonderfully balanced, open to new experiences, with internally based control.[3] I’m sure most creative people would like to view themselves this way. However, many are honest and admit to deep insecurities. And of course, most of us have run into a few of the difficult, smug, prima donna types.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi does not see creativity as strictly residing within a person, rather it is an interaction between a person and society. Social systems and cultures determine what is creative and what is not. To be considered creative, an individual must strike a balance between coming up with a novel idea and relating to accepted conventions. Otherwise their work will not be viewed as creative. He also has the idea that when creative people are working they become so fulfilled in their involvement that they forget about other things – like food and sleep.[4]

Finally we come full circle to Albert Rothenburg who proposes that creative people use a certain kind of thinking that allows them to consider two opposite concepts at the same time – sort of like two objects occupying the same space resulting in something new. His research shows that creative thought processes are not logical and actually resembled those of the mentally ill. However, creative people are actually aware of that they are indulging in ‘crazy’ thinking while they are doing this – at least most of the time.[5]

[1] Rothenburg, A. &  Hausman. C., (1976). The creativity question.  Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
[2] Mednick. S. (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review. 69, 220-232.
[3] Rogers, C. (1962). Toward a theory of creativity. In Parnes, S. Harding, H. (Eds.) A source book for creative thinking. New York: Scribners.
[4] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[5] Rothenburg, A. &  Hausman. C., (1976). The creativity question.  Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Creativity, Education trends | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The disadvantages of being creative

Posted on June 27, 2013 by knlistman

DSCN0774

Creative students often display characteristics that teachers simply do not like. When I asked teachers to rank students’ creative acts, many had trouble. Some called the students contrary, lazy or deceitful, and failed to see the creativity involved.

I’ve found the same conclusions reached by other researchers. J. Khatena teamed with E.P. Torrance, who developed many of the tests for creativity used by educators, to design an assessment called ‘What Kind of Person Are You?’ According to this assessment, Inquisitiveness, a creative characteristic, can be exhibited by talking a lot or demanding responses, especially by younger students. (How else can they inquire about things?)[1]

In addition, acceptance of authority – being obedient, respectful and polite, following rules, and accepting others in power – is indicative of a non-creative person. Creative students make judgments and evaluate situations for themselves, which means that they often do not do what they are told. Their actions are based on their own internal beliefs and desires.  On one hand educators praise intrinsic motivation, while dreading some students that are actually intrinsically motivated.

According the second part of the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory, creative adolescents and adults are both open to new ideas and critical of other’s ideas. [2] This does not cause an inherent conflict for creative students as it does for others. However, the creative person tends to have fewer friends because many view criticism as a sign of rejection when it does not have to be. As creative students become older, they will not remain the same. They often increasingly prefer to work alone. This is not always because they desire solitude, but because they are aware that others suspiciously consider them to be different.  Their remoteness, a form of self-protection, is often viewed as snobbishness.

Of course, I realize all these characteristics can cause problems in class. What can one do? When my students butt heads with another teacher, I ask them to talk with the teacher outside of class. That is also the best way to deal with creative students if their actions are disruptive. Ask for a reason for the behavior. Then, politely explain why the behavior causes a problem and ask them what they think can be done about it. If they cannot come up with a workable solution, use your own. Also, I like to keep a collection of quiet, relevant and challenging independent activities creative students can do by themselves to avert disruptive behavior. Still, none of these techniques work all of the time.

The love-hate relationship with creativity and the creative person is not limited to education. In most aspects of life people desire the product of creativity, while avoiding the producer. This is complicated by the fact that creative people can become enemies of their creative cohorts in the competition to achieve. Perhaps the best thing a teacher could do is show a little empathy.

[1]  Torrence, E.P. & Khatena, J. (1970) What Kind of Person Are You? A brief screening device for identifying creatively gifted adolescents and adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 14, 71-75
[2]  Khatena, G. & Torrence, E.P. (1998). Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory – Instruction Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Creativity, Education trends | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Videomania III

Posted on June 26, 2013 by knlistman

DSC01420 w copy2 What about the claims that I’ve heard? Instruction through video is supposed to be more engaging, save more time and promotes better learning that using traditional methods, such as lecturing or reading assignments.

More engaging? Engagement level really depends on both quality and content of video. If the video narrator is no better at speaking than the live lecturer, the audience will pay less attention. Even if the visuals are more dramatic, they will simply divert the viewers’ attention, making it harder to remember what the narrator said. Most of what we learn comes through language, including the speaker’s body language and intonation. I’ve heard high school students describe a video series in which the narrator’s peppy voices reeked of condescension, making it hard for them to pay attention to what was actually said. Obviously, instructional videos are more engaging if professionally produced and audience-appropriate. What is not so obvious is how to create this kind of video consistently for all content. Choose videos for your class wisely.

Save time? This is an interesting claim because listening to a reading level recorded book takes the average students about three times longer than reading it silently.  The addition of the audio, appealing visuals, varied repetition  and  intermittent drama or humor make the video more interesting and facilitate learning. But these also add time to the video. They usually end up presenting less information in the same amount of time than a well-organized lecture or reading assignment.

Promotes better learning? Textbook and manuals are meant for reference, not reading straight through. Scripts for videos normally condense the data-laden text and do not cover as much. Typically information is reorganized and reduced to emphasize overall objectives before being produced as a video. Most videos provide a good introduction, or special interest investigation, not a complete course. Students who have little prior knowledge or a lot of difficulty reading will learn more from videos. Students with more prior knowledge and higher reading skills tend to learn less from videos than traditional methods. Also, monitoring learning during a video is essential. Stop the video at regular intervals to provide interaction –  students need to practice what they have learned and have their questions answered.

Videos do work for instruction, but they are only part of the learning equation.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Technology in education | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment